Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 28

Thread: Halibut, Sablefish, and King Bycatch

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    863

    Default Halibut, Sablefish, and King Bycatch

    The levels of halibut, sablefish, and King Salmon bycatch need addressed again.

    In the Bearing Sea 7.73 million pounds of halibut is allowed to be taken as bycatch. Trawlers there also caught around 5 million pounds of sablefish bycatch even though their "limit" is 1.4 million pounds of sablefish bycatch.

    In the
    Central and Western Gulf 2.1 million pounds of halibut is allowed to be taken as bycatch, 16,802 chinook salmon were also taken as bycatch (about 5,000 more than made it up the world famous Kenai River this year to spawn). Trawlers in the Central Gulf also caught around 4.7 million pounds of sablefish bycatch even though their "limit" is 2.3 million pounds of sablefish bycatch.

    Most of this bycatch is discarded overboard even if all the fish are dead. The amount of fish that is wasted as bycatch impacts all of us who fish for these species, the directed commercial fisheries are limited and sportsfishing is limited.

    https://www.alaskajournal.com/2019-1...-again-council
    “I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.” Physicist ― Richard Feynman


  2. #2
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,614

    Default

    Money talks. These levels are allowed because the pollock fishery is worth so much. Doesn't matter that the other fisheries are being wiped out in large part due to this waste.

  3. #3
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,791

    Default

    Insatiable human greed and wastefulness.... shakin' my f'n head in disgust!
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  4. #4
    Member 4merguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Alaska
    Posts
    11,549

    Default

    Imo, if they can't get this in check they should limit (ie, cut way back) the amount of trawlers until they do! It boggles the mind that they are allowed to waste a greater quality fish in persuit of a lesser quality fish. Freekin ridiculous! I don't care how many people love their fake crab and McDonalds fish sandwiches!
    Sheep hunting...... the pain goes away, but the stupidity remains...!!!

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,469

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Insatiable human greed and wastefulness.... shakin' my f'n head in disgust!
    They are almost as bad as the medical field where they charge bandit prices for everything. Talk about GREED!!

  6. #6
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kgpcr View Post
    They are almost as bad as the medical field where they charge bandit prices for everything. Talk about GREED!!
    Oh... you mean like my life-changing $600 cataract operation?

    Ridiculously irrelevant comparison.
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,469

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Oh... you mean like my life-changing $600 cataract operation?

    Ridiculously irrelevant comparison.
    Doc I hit a nerve but I will stay with it. If you would like me to cite examples of GREED in your profession I would be happy to list some. lets just say kickbacks from drug companies alone are a disgrace. Paid vacations from them to those who prescribe them. Oh yeah they call them workshops in island paradises. there are hour meetings if you want to attend if not have a great time on XXX pharmaceuticals. My fishing buddy is an anesthesiologist and I hear his stories. Heck the comm guys are providing cheap protein to the world. Nothing from the medical profession is cheap. I am done here. Sorry Doc but I will stick with my statement

  8. #8
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kgpcr View Post
    Doc I hit a nerve but I will stay with it. If you would like me to cite examples of GREED in your profession I would be happy to list some. lets just say kickbacks from drug companies alone are a disgrace. Paid vacations from them to those who prescribe them. Oh yeah they call them workshops in island paradises. there are hour meetings if you want to attend if not have a great time on XXX pharmaceuticals. My fishing buddy is an anesthesiologist and I hear his stories. Heck the comm guys are providing cheap protein to the world. Nothing from the medical profession is cheap. I am done here. Sorry Doc but I will stick with my statement
    On topic, please. There is one point that makes me want to explode, in regards to bycatch. That is when anyone will say, and many do, that killing fish in this fishery has no effect on the overall health or abundance of the species they are killing. "Oh, its not us, its the in river conditions like pike, its the lodges, its the charters, its the floods, its the heat, its the salmon sharks, blah blah blah." Yet they can provide zero evidence that their catch and waste of the species at question is not contributing to its low abundance or in the case of king salmon, complete collapse. The bottom line is, if you kill a salmon before it spawns, it cannot spawn. Its really that simple! So if we aren't getting enough salmon back upriver to spawn, then every single factor must be looked at, and pre spawn mortality reduced wherever we can. Sure, humans can't control everything; so that makes it more important to control those things that we can- such as commercial bycatch! If biomass of halibut is low, and not increasing, then bycatch should be reduced! If doing this raises the price of pollock from 20 cents a pound to 30 cents a pound, great! Fishermen could catch a third less, and make the same money! Win, win.

  9. #9
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,791

    Default

    Catch less... MAKE MORE!

    Who-da-thunk-it? An undeniably underutilized business model within the commercial fishing industry.
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  10. #10
    Member 4merguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Alaska
    Posts
    11,549

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    On topic, please. There is one point that makes me want to explode, in regards to bycatch. That is when anyone will say, and many do, that killing fish in this fishery has no effect on the overall health or abundance of the species they are killing. "Oh, its not us, its the in river conditions like pike, its the lodges, its the charters, its the floods, its the heat, its the salmon sharks, blah blah blah." Yet they can provide zero evidence that their catch and waste of the species at question is not contributing to its low abundance or in the case of king salmon, complete collapse. The bottom line is, if you kill a salmon before it spawns, it cannot spawn. Its really that simple! So if we aren't getting enough salmon back upriver to spawn, then every single factor must be looked at, and pre spawn mortality reduced wherever we can. Sure, humans can't control everything; so that makes it more important to control those things that we can- such as commercial bycatch! If biomass of halibut is low, and not increasing, then bycatch should be reduced! If doing this raises the price of pollock from 20 cents a pound to 30 cents a pound, great! Fishermen could catch a third less, and make the same money! Win, win.
    Bycatch IS waste....no ifs, ands, or butts, about it! Anybody that thinks different is delusional. Maybe years ago when the oceans were considerably more healthy, it may have not have made such a big impact. But today, in this day in age, with the overall health of our oceans declining....massive islands of garbage floating around all over, crazy water temps causing all kinds of problems, etc... How can anybody in their right mind believe that any waste of any sort be "allowable"? It's ludicrous!
    Sheep hunting...... the pain goes away, but the stupidity remains...!!!

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    863

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    The bottom line is, if you kill a salmon before it spawns, it cannot spawn. Its really that simple! So if we aren't getting enough salmon back upriver to spawn, then every single factor must be looked at, and pre spawn mortality reduced wherever we can. Sure, humans can't control everything; so that makes it more important to control those things that we can- such as commercial bycatch! If biomass of halibut is low, and not increasing, then bycatch should be reduced!
    This should be posted again and again and again.
    “I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.” Physicist ― Richard Feynman


  12. #12
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,791

    Default

    Interception of pre-spawn subadults (so called "feeder" kings) and trawl bycatch of juvenile kings top the list of low-hanging fruit of human-caused chinook depletion that could be directly addressed. The results would be immediate and powerful!
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,163

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Interception of pre-spawn subadults (so called "feeder" kings) and trawl bycatch of juvenile kings top the list of low-hanging fruit of human-caused chinook depletion that could be directly addressed. The results would be immediate and powerful!
    You gonna include the feeder king sport fisheries that take place in the winter from California to Alaska in this too?
    An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
    - Jef Mallett

  14. #14
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twodux View Post
    You gonna include the feeder king sport fisheries that take place in the winter from California to Alaska in this too?
    As a significant cause of pre-spawn mortality? Yah yoo becha! It all counts... and eventually it all adds up to fewer fish making it back to the basin of origin. Can it be any other way?
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    649

    Default

    Ok we can all agree it’s extremely harmful. But how do we solve it? By nature the trawl fishery is a giant vacuum cleaner and can’t sort the pollock from everything else as I understand it. So do we stop the fishery? Make them use pots? Force them to bring the bycatch to market and crush the other fisheries’ markets? Start farming Filet O’ Fish sammiches?

    I ask as I truly don’t know.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gbflyer View Post
    Ok we can all agree it’s extremely harmful. But how do we solve it? By nature the trawl fishery is a giant vacuum cleaner and can’t sort the pollock from everything else as I understand it. So do we stop the fishery? Make them use pots? Force them to bring the bycatch to market and crush the other fisheries’ markets? Start farming Filet O’ Fish sammiches?

    I ask as I truly don’t know.
    Actually, it might be fairly simple.

    Other fishing sectors have solved their by-catch issue by improving their gear and getting better time/location information for deployment. Shrimp fisheries are a great example.

    If NMFS would greatly restrict the Pollock by-catch (as an example), it might force the user groups to re-invent their gear to only catch the target species. A restrictive limit on by-catch should be a limit where fishing is uneconomical with the current gear. This would require users to develop better gear, and to deploy that gear at times and locations where by-catch is close to zero. If not, they can’t go fishing. So they can either adapt or die.

    It’s worked before. It can again, but only if NMFS is willing and able (politically) to do it.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    Actually, it might be fairly simple.

    Other fishing sectors have solved their by-catch issue by improving their gear and getting better time/location information for deployment. Shrimp fisheries are a great example.

    If NMFS would greatly restrict the Pollock by-catch (as an example), it might force the user groups to re-invent their gear to only catch the target species. A restrictive limit on by-catch should be a limit where fishing is uneconomical with the current gear. This would require users to develop better gear, and to deploy that gear at times and locations where by-catch is close to zero. If not, they canÂ’t go fishing. So they can either adapt or die.

    ItÂ’s worked before. It can again, but only if NMFS is willing and able (politically) to do it.
    A common theme in articles about climate change is some species will thrive, some will hang-on at very low levels, and some will go away. In my opinion Kings are a loser in climate change warm and changing ocean and fresh waters are dooming kings. so all the fishing regulations people want to change will not make a difference to the changing environment. There is already studies showing several areas in Cook Inlet will be too warm in 25 years to support salmon. Go ahead make the Kenai drift only, catch and release only and close the set netters and trawlers forever. Not gonna change the air and water temperatures from getting warmer. The environment is not able to make them big fish and large numbers any more. A bigger government is not going to solve the problem.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    863

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kidfromgarcia View Post
    A common theme in articles about climate change is some species will thrive, some will hang-on at very low levels, and some will go away. In my opinion Kings are a loser in climate change warm and changing ocean and fresh waters are dooming kings. so all the fishing regulations people want to change will not make a difference to the changing environment. There is already studies showing several areas in Cook Inlet will be too warm in 25 years to support salmon. Go ahead make the Kenai drift only, catch and release only and close the set netters and trawlers forever. Not gonna change the air and water temperatures from getting warmer. The environment is not able to make them big fish and large numbers any more. A bigger government is not going to solve the problem.
    King salmon are returning in greater and greater numbers in California, as state well known for having much warmer temperatures than Alaska. If global warming is hurting kings in the Kenai is it also helping them in California?
    “I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.” Physicist ― Richard Feynman


  19. #19
    Member cdubbin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    KP, the dingleberry of Alaska
    Posts
    2,111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Patsfan54 View Post
    King salmon are returning in greater and greater numbers in California, as state well known for having much warmer temperatures than Alaska. If global warming is hurting kings in the Kenai is it also helping them in California?
    One halfway decent season in one river system because of unusually heavy rains during one winter does not mean salmon are recovering on the west coast....
    "– Gas boats are bad enough, autos are an invention of the devil, and airplanes are worse." ~Allen Hasselborg

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    863

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cdubbin View Post
    One halfway decent season in one river system because of unusually heavy rains during one winter does not mean salmon are recovering on the west coast....
    I'm not sure who is saying that kings are recovering on the west coast, it certainly wasn't me. I also wasn't aware that king salmon were a single year species capable of hatching out, going out to sea and then returning from sea to spawn all during one year. I always thought kings took years to go through their entire life cycle. Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding.
    “I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.” Physicist ― Richard Feynman


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •